05.11.2014 Views

April 2013 - AFMA

April 2013 - AFMA

April 2013 - AFMA

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Control of E. coli, Salmonella<br />

and other potential pathogens<br />

By Dr Peter Theobald, Addcon Europe GmbH, Germany<br />

Contamination of animals with<br />

pathogenic bacteria creates<br />

enormous social and economic<br />

costs worldwide. The annual<br />

costs of Salmonella alone to the<br />

UK economy are more than 46 million British<br />

pounds, with estimated 2,8 billion euro<br />

losses across the European Union (World<br />

Health Organisation, 2005). New management<br />

and dietary strategies to counteract<br />

intestinal pathogens in animal production<br />

are therefore of great interest.<br />

Preventing the spread of E. coli and Salmonella<br />

to the consumer requires special<br />

control measures during slaughter and<br />

processing. Improving gut health has been<br />

shown to be effective against intestinal<br />

pathogens (Eidelsburger et al., 1992). While<br />

biosecurity and hygiene in the feed mill and<br />

on the farm are essential, the acidification of<br />

feed ingredients or finished feeds with organic<br />

acids also offers considerable benefits<br />

in E. coli and Salmonella control.<br />

Feed acidification is not only effective<br />

within the feed – possibly its biggest benefit<br />

occurs within the pig itself. In different European<br />

case studies diformates have proven<br />

their high effectiveness to decrease potential<br />

pathogens in monogastric farm animals.<br />

Literature review<br />

The positive effect of organic acids and their<br />

salts in preserving feed from microbial and<br />

fungal destruction is known for decades.<br />

Also, the positive effect on improved buffering<br />

capacity of the diet with an increased<br />

digestibility of nutrients, especially protein<br />

digestibility and thereby reducing pathogen<br />

colonisation, is often described (Eidelsburger<br />

et al., 1992; Kirchgessner et al., 1992;<br />

Eidelsburger & Kirchgessner, 1994; Freitag,<br />

2007).<br />

Strauss and Hayler (2001) showed under<br />

in vitro conditions the strong antibacterial<br />

effects for formic acid, in comparison to<br />

propionic and lactic acids. Considering the<br />

mode of action of organic acids, it is a precondition<br />

to have contact between the acid<br />

Table 1: The effect of different types of feed additives in weaners<br />

Parameter Control K-diformate (KDF)<br />

(1,2%)<br />

Colistin<br />

(120 ppm)<br />

ZnO<br />

(2500 ppm)<br />

Feed intake (g/day) 760 787 791 778<br />

Weight gain (g/day) 543ab 565a 565a 537b<br />

FCR# 1,40a 1,40a 1,40a 1,45b<br />

Diarrhoea (%) 39,6a 0,7b 14,6c 12,5c<br />

Means in rows bearing unlike superscripts differ significantly (P

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!